Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:23)

Lightenup said: Quote BTW, your trinitarian brothers do not seem to agree that the verse we were discussing about the Son being “given” life referred to the ascribing of self-existence. Kathi Kathi, Jesus did not say that the Father gave “life” to Him. He said that the Father gave Him to “have life IN HIMSELF.” This is self-existence! Quote For as the Father has life in Himself so He has given the Son to have life in Himself Come on! Self existence cannot be imparted. This would be an oxymoron. It can be given only in the sense that is is ascribed. And anyone who disagrees with this has abandoned common sense. thinker

Hi Thinker,

This passage says that the Son lives because of the Father:

John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
NASU

Love ya,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:11)

WorshipingJesus said to Kathi: Quote You say that Jesus came into being. John says that nothing came into being without him. Amen! One does not need a degree in rocket science to undertsand such a simple statement. thinker

Thinker and Keith,
The context already has established that the “Word” was there. The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.”

God bless,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker and Keith, The context already has established that the “Word” was there.  The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.”

Kathi,
It doesn't say “other” things. You're putting words into John's mouth.

thinker

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45)

NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were):

Kathi,
An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not?

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Hi Thinker, This passage says that the Son lives because of the Father: John 6:53-58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.  54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.  56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.  58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” NASU Love ya, Kathi

Kathi,
The statement in John 5:26 says that the Son has life IN HIMSELF. The statement in John 6 means that Jesus lives FOR the Father and indicates that it is always His purpose to do the Father's will.

The Father ascribes self-existence to the Son. It's plain!

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Please be accurate.

Jn5
26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

So he is not the God Who gave him that life and the trinity is a myth.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,09:19)

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:11) WorshipingJesus said to Kathi: Quote You say that Jesus came into being. John says that nothing came into being without him. Amen! One does not need a degree in rocket science to undertsand such a simple statement. thinker Thinker and Keith, The context already has established that the “Word” was there.  The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.” God bless, Kathi

Hi Kathi

The passage explicitly says “nothing came into being without him”.

John says that he “Was God” who we know is an eternal being.

John nowhere in the context implies that he “came into existence” and then all other things came after him.

That is a gross distortion of the text. IMO

[epistemaniac]

you are right WJ, there never was a time when Jesus was not…..

blessings,
ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
So when the Father gave for the Son to have life in himself what does this mean?

Jn5
26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Did the Son exist without life for a time?

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45) NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): Kathi, An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not?

Hi Is,

According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.”
I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember.

Quote

Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

source:
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

God bless,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,18:16)

Lightenup said: Quote Thinker and Keith, The context already has established that the “Word” was there.  The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.” Kathi, It doesn't say “other” things. You're putting words into John's mouth. thinker

It doesn't have to say it Thinker, it is obvious.

You just have to have a willingness to consider it and you can see it.
Kathi

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:31)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45) NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): Kathi, An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not? Hi Is, According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.” I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember. Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. source: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en God bless, Kathi

Yes, but the Greek word “en” in John 1:1c is not in the form of the verb “to be”, that applies to the word “eimi”. En is the imperfect form of eimi, and certainly denotes continuous action in the past. I'm not making this up Kathi, here look:

Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,20:52)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:31) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45) NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): Kathi, An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not? Hi Is, According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.” I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember. Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. source: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en God bless, Kathi Yes, but the Greek word “en” in John 1:1c is not in the form of the verb “to be”, that applies to the word “eimi”. En is the imperfect form of eimi, and certainly denotes continuous action in the past. I'm not making this up Kathi, here look: Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

Is,
The explanation from Studylight.org includes all forms of “eimi” which means to be. To be is an infinitive verb which is written in the forms: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been.
I am not making this up either. I even got this info from a trinitarian site.

Kathi

[Is 1:18]

Was A T Roberson, the world's foremost Kione Greek grammarian (and practically all the others), wrong then? I think you've misunderstoood the material in Studylight.

[Is 1:18]

Or how about Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words?

I think this elucidates the misunderstanding….

* Note: When not part of another verb, or phrase, these translate eimi, “to be,” e.g., Matt. 1:18, or the following: (a) ginomai, “to become,” e.g., Matt. 8:26; (b) huparcho, “to exist,” especially when referring to an already existing condition, e.g., Luke 8:41; Acts 5:4 (2nd part); 16:3; 27:12; Rom. 4:19, AV, “when he was” (RV, “he being”); © echo, “to have,” e.g., Acts 12:15; (d) apecho, “to be away, to be distant,” e.g., Luke 7:6; 24:13; (e) mello, “to be about to,” e.g., Luke 19:4; Acts 21:27,37, AV (RV, “was about to”); (f) sumbaino, “to come to pass, happen,” e.g., Acts 21:35; (g) in Gal. 4:28, the preposition kata, “according to,” is rendered “was,” in the phrase “as Isaac was,” lit., “like Isaac;” as Isaac's birth came by Divine interposition, so does the spiritual birth of every believer.

I.e “eimi” can rightly be translated “to be”, but “en” cannot.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:33)

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,18:16) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker and Keith, The context already has established that the “Word” was there.  The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.” Kathi, It doesn't say “other” things. You're putting words into John's mouth. thinker It doesn't have to say it Thinker, it is obvious. You just have to have a willingness to consider it and you can see it. Kathi

Kathi,
Your method is called “eisegesis”. This occurs when one reads an idea INTO a text. You are reading INTO the text your idea that Christ created all “other” things.

The trinitarian method involves “exegesis.” This involves reading OUT OF the text. The text says that ALL things were created by Him. Again, no degree in rocket science is needed to calculate these things.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Is, The explanation from Studylight.org includes all forms of “eimi” which means to be.  To be is an infinitive verb which is written in the forms: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been. I am not making this up either.  I even got this info from a trinitarian site.

Kathi,
Your point being….

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,21:25)

Or how about Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words? I think this elucidates the misunderstanding…. * Note: When not part of another verb, or phrase, these translate eimi, “to be,” e.g., Matt. 1:18, or the following: (a) ginomai, “to become,” e.g., Matt. 8:26; (b) huparcho, “to exist,” especially when referring to an already existing condition, e.g., Luke 8:41; Acts 5:4 (2nd part); 16:3; 27:12; Rom. 4:19, AV, “when he was” (RV, “he being”); © echo, “to have,” e.g., Acts 12:15; (d) apecho, “to be away, to be distant,” e.g., Luke 7:6; 24:13; (e) mello, “to be about to,” e.g., Luke 19:4; Acts 21:27,37, AV (RV, “was about to”); (f) sumbaino, “to come to pass, happen,” e.g., Acts 21:35; (g) in Gal. 4:28, the preposition kata, “according to,” is rendered “was,” in the phrase “as Isaac was,” lit., “like Isaac;” as Isaac's birth came by Divine interposition, so does the spiritual birth of every believer. I.e “eimi” can rightly be translated “to be”, but “en” cannot.

Is,
I do not think that you are understanding me, sorry, I will try again.
The Greek word “en” is translated as “was” and it is in the imperfect tense which normally denotes continual or repeated action but with forms of the verb “eimi” it is simply past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. “en” is a form of the verb “to be.”

There is definetly a difference between A T Roberson and what studylight.org is saying. Have you looked it up on studylight?

Think about it Is, if “en” meant always existed in this verse, why doesn't it mean it in the other hundreds of times it is used in the imperfect tense in John as well as the entire NT?

Blessings,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,21:53)

Lightenup said: Quote Is, The explanation from Studylight.org includes all forms of “eimi” which means to be.  To be is an infinitive verb which is written in the forms: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been. I am not making this up either.  I even got this info from a trinitarian site. Kathi, Your point being…. thinker

Thinker,
Maybe it will help you to read the past few pages from about page 47 and you might get your answer.
Love,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,21:48)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:33) Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,18:16) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker and Keith, The context already has established that the “Word” was there.  The things that came into being are the other things that came into being through the one who was the “Word.” Kathi, It doesn't say “other” things. You're putting words into John's mouth. thinker It doesn't have to say it Thinker, it is obvious. You just have to have a willingness to consider it and you can see it. Kathi Kathi, Your method is called “eisegesis”. This occurs when one reads an idea INTO a text. You are reading INTO the text your idea that Christ created all “other” things. The trinitarian method involves “exegesis.” This involves reading OUT OF the text. The text says that ALL things were created by Him. Again, no degree in rocket science is needed to calculate these things. thinker

Thinker,
If I was giving you a tour of a home that I built with my own hands, and say I even made the furniture and accessories and then told you that I made all things in the house while we were standing in the kitchen, you would understand that I was not referring to you or myself in the “all things” even though you and I would be technically “in the house” and that does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. That is obvious, right?

That is why I say that obviously the Son already existed before He made all things and the “all things” do not imply the Son or the Father.

Blessings,
Kathi

[Author]

Posts